Retrieve KDC major subject classification codes for South Korea's library system. Enter a major code (0-9) to obtain the corresponding subject list.
KDC 대주제분류 코드 목록을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| majorCode | No | 대분류 코드 (0-9) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a list, but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the majorCode parameter affects results. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about expected behavior beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. For a tool with minimal complexity, this level of brevity is appropriate and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity: one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description states the resource and the schema explains the parameter. However, it does not clarify that the parameter is optional, nor does it describe the structure of the returned list or how the filter works. Given the ambiguity among sibling tools, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter majorCode, which is described as '대분류 코드 (0-9)'. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter, but the schema covers it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('조회' - retrieve) and a clear resource ('KDC 대주제분류 코드 목록' - KDC major subject classification code list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_detailed_subject_codes and search_detailed_kdc_codes, which likely deal with more granular codes. However, it does not explicitly mention the optional filter parameter, so it stops short of being fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_detailed_subject_codes or search_detailed_kdc_codes. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.